S-2

Oscar,

This is what you've added-

"The reasons I listed above are not mine but Richard Perle's and wolfowitz argumentation for an American intervention in Iraq."

Then you should attribute it as such and provide authoritative links to these assertions. That allows us to compare their actual comments against your interpretation espoused here.

"It is not a criticism of the war in Iraq on the contrary I believe it was a very bold plan but they didn't put the means first hand to see it succeeding."

As an avowed neo-con, these "pretenders" squandered our accumulated and, post- 9/11, accelerated political capital by selling both Afghanistan and Iraq to themselves and others on the "cheap".

Are YOU a neo-con, Oscar?

"If you read closer S-2 your comment is very much in line with what I posted before: a constant worry not to see a dominant regional power emerging, a divide and rule strategy, and of course the freedom of trade maintained above all (means the end of the Saudi monopoly).."

My comments addressed a specific national security condition for which the U.S. would contest the mid-east with any emerging regional hegemons or external subjugation (i.e. the USSR).

This is what you said-

"_To make this country a beacon for democracy and to encourage other Arab countries to convert to democratic principles:"

As General Petraeus indicated in sworn testimony this week before Congress, neither Ambassador Crocker nor himself entertain notions of "Jeffersonian" democracy bursting forth anytime soon.

Nonetheless, to date, Iraq represents a considerable advance of these ideas over the prevailing regional paradigms of governance. This in spite of our numerous faux pas and absent the overt assistance of notable others within the region and throughout Europe. If you are truly a student of diplomacy and law then you'll understand the emerging forces at play in Iraq as a dynamic threat to regional patterns of "governance by repression".

"The Arabs are still not convinced "by the facts on the ground" ."

Which ones? Indeed, no Arab foreign minister has visited Iraq in the last year. Were you to ask Iraqi arabs, however, most perceptive observers would likely indicate that they prefer their own emerging political power and influence. Would you care to wager a bet on the al-Anbar voter turn-out this coming fall?

"...And if they were they would be put into jail by their western-backed rulers because the West wants democracy and majority rule for Arabs but only when they agree with us."

Repressive gov'ts are fighting a rear-guard action throughout the region. Consider Pakistan, Egypt, and Iran. Each possess considerable citizens in opposition to the established norms. Pandora's box has been opened, never to close. More to the point, with each passing week of American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq this becomes more so.

The apple cart has been upset and it will never be the same.

"To put pressure on the Saudis who were seen as the real culprit behind 9/11 with their funding of islamic groups,etc.. (but unless you are suicidal you don't attack the main provider of oil to the world): do they feel that pressure? Do they want to reform? For what they have done 9/11 was enough for them to make them realise that they had completely screwed up"

What has been the net result of this Saudi "awakening"? It's pertubations are unnoticed. The middle east isn't standing still while waiting for Saudi Arabia to reject wahabbism as antithical to their own self-interests. Still, even the Saudis now realize that the cannot isolate their kingdom from external influences. That said, we'll see which of those influences are welcomed over time.

However, as a matter of U.S. nat'l security policy, you've made no case that we explicitly targeted Saudi Arabia as a peripheral interest of our Iraqi invasion. Again, a link to this assertion from your would help clarify their exact thoughts.

"_To secure Iraqi oilfields and once again make the West less dependent vis a vis the Saudis: no"

Full and fair access to energy resources for all concerned. Our regional presence assures that for the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Iranians, U.A.E., etc. All oil is sold on the open market. Everybody is vulnerable to any price spike. Canadian, Venezuelan, Nigerian, Mexican, etc.- it's all one commodity bag from which we draw.

"_To free the Shias from a Sunni dictatorship,to side with the Shias and to give them commands in Iraq, and that way counterbalance the Sunni domination in the region, responsible for what has gone wrong in the Middle East: The Sunnis feel threatened that's right but the Shias didn't get the message"

Nonsense. You've ignored the effect of Kurds upon Iraqi politics utterly here. Simplistic. Please explain the alawite domination of a sunni-majority state in Syria? You've not given this serious thought and it's a poorly developed point.

"_To put a "lively shia democracy" right in front of the islamic one so Iranians would feel compelled to reform and adopt a much friendlier tone with the US: no"

A comparison between Iran's mullocracy and Iraq entails more than Shias. It's an emerging multi-ethnic democracy. That comparison, alone, shall suffice to draw favorable reviews.

"_To destroy once and for all Arab nationalism with the fall of Saddam and pave the way for a recognition of Israel by the countries of the region "the road to Jerusalem goes through Bagdad":no"

Only on the most oblique, circuitous path. Institutionalized arab nationalism is fascistic baathism. Not a bad objective to eliminate as a regional concept. It's influence was marginal, however. Nobody hastened to emulate Syria/Iraq's baathist model. As to recognition, doesn't Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey recognize Israel and done so well before 2003.

Nobody shall hold their breath to await Iran's recognition. That said, to suggest that ties are far closer between Israel and others who had abhorred it as a pariah state is more than fair.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski